Incumbent Upon Trial Court To Fix Amount For Bail Bond Once High Court Orders Release Of Accused: Madhya Pradesh HC
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently directed the lower court to ascertain the value of bail bond of the Applicant who was granted bail by the High Court, without mentioning the bail amount. The Court further directed the trial court to remain cautious while dealing with a bail order, as it had refused to ascertain amount for bail bond despite being made aware of the decision of the...
The Madhya Pradesh High Court recently directed the lower court to ascertain the value of bail bond of the Applicant who was granted bail by the High Court, without mentioning the bail amount.
The Court further directed the trial court to remain cautious while dealing with a bail order, as it had refused to ascertain amount for bail bond despite being made aware of the decision of the Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.
In that case, the Supreme Court had observed that Magistrate's order refusing to release the petitioner on bail on the ground that bail amount has not been mentioned in the order, is not justified. It had observed,
"(Magistrate) should have realized that once an order is passed by the Supreme Court directing release of the petitioner on bail and there is no mention about the bail amount, it is incumbent on the trial Court to fix the amount for the bail bonds."
Taking note of this decision, Justice Vishal Mishra observed,
"Special Judge is directed to fix an amount for releasing the applicants on bail in pursuance to the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Madanlal (supra) as the aforesaid judgment is already settled by the Supreme Court. The learned Special Judge is directed to remain cautious while dealing with the bail order."
The Court was essentially dealing with an application under Section 482 CrPC, moved by the Applicant who was aggrieved by the refusal of the lower court to fix the amount for his bail bond as the same did not find mention in the bail order passed by the Court.
Placing reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in Vijay Madanlal Choudhary case, the Applicant submitted that the said judgment was placed before the trial court. However, the special judge refused to ascertain the amount and accordingly rejected his application. Therefore, the Applicant prayed for a direction to the trial court to permit him to furnish the bail bonds.
The State fairly admitted that in pursuance to the decision of the Supreme Court in Vijay Madanlal case, the lower court should have fixed the amount for furnishing the bail bonds.
Case Title: SMT. URMILA SEN AND ANR. v. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH AND ANR.
Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (MP) 91